That's indeed very true. Some nations think that there is no such global warming. However, some scientists insist that the global warming creates catastrophes around the world. Which one is correct? Yet i don't know.

Yes, some people blame industrialization and transportation as the main causes of pollution and green-house effect. However, this may not be true. Looking at the composition of the atmosphere, the CO2 concentration has not yet been enough to create such effects.

This is all it says when you click on "evidence". No actual facts or statistics there for the support of the theory of Global Warming.

The climate of the Earth is always changing. In the past it has altered as a result of natural causes. Nowadays, however, the term climate change is generally used when referring to changes in our climate which have been identified since the early part of the 1900's. The changes we've seen over recent years and those which are predicted over the next 80 years are thought to be mainly as a result of human behaviour rather than due to natural changes in the atmosphere.

The greenhouse effect is very important when we talk about climate change as it relates to the gases which keep the Earth warm. It is the extra greenhouse gases which humans have released which are thought to pose the strongest threat.

Thanks for development of science, we can come to approach nature more closely and take control of it more easily than in the past. Ironically, the surface of the earth is gettiing more and more warmer and it seriously affects the ecological balance and environment.

mamuta wrote:danyet, as a resistant of US you are guilty of increasing greenhouse effect...

Do you know what "greenhouse effect" is?
It is largely carbon dioxide and methane. All lifeforms give off carbon dioxide and methane. That means trees and even rain forests. You need to read BOTH sides of this issue.

Hmmm...the US is the largest single emitter od carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. Have you ever heard of the Kyoto Protocol? It's an agreement about reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases. The US has never ratified it

mamuta wrote:Hmmm...the US is the largest single emitter od carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. Have you ever heard of the Kyoto Protocol? It's an agreement about reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases. The US has never ratified it

Global warning is a problem which exceeds ecnomic issues of each country.The American behavior may well be condemned.

mamuta wrote:Hmmm...the US is the largest single emitter od carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. Have you ever heard of the Kyoto Protocol? It's an agreement about reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases. The US has never ratified it

There are many good reasons why USA and several other countries ignore this stupid Kyoto Protocol. The main reason is that it won't help anything. It is a ruse for the masses. and will have little effect on the situation. Perhaps it is time for you to read BOTH sides of the issue?

danyet wrote:
There are many good reasons why USA and several other countries ignore this stupid Kyoto Protocol. The main reason is that it won't help anything. It is a ruse for the masses. and will have little effect on the situation. Perhaps it is time for you to read BOTH sides of the issue?

well, to be honest with you guys, we all know that the medium temperatures on earth have been growing and that men is in part guilty for what is happening, however i think this is only another cycle as many others we had before, the only thing we can do is to delay a bit that cycle or accelerate, but the fact is that we are completely incapable of stop it

Kyoto Protocol is not stupid. But those countries like USA and others are pigs since they don't want ratify it. Yeah maybe the effect of it will be so small that u almost don't notify it, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a big **** that some countries don't want ratify it. If they are not ready to sacrifice own economy for something so importand... well it's stink. No they are idiots not pigs. Calling them as pigs would offense pig.

For whom they increase own economy, if there is no one left who could enjoy it, because of crazy weather.. or maybe they thin,k that if they get enough wealthy they may build own closed world.. a glass bell where they can live safely... change temperature by air conditioner etc.
And rest of world.. who cares of them

I understand what you want to say.Thank you for replying.
I think diffirence between developing countries and developed countries also comlicate to deal with the problem on enviromnent crisis. Since developing coutries want to grow their own economy as soon as possible,it is difficult to think about these issues.
So in a sense,they cannot help ignoring.
But developed coutries like America and others should play a leading role in conserving our earth. It is because that they have advanced technology to reduce the carbon dioxide emmisions , create clean air and so on.

Developing countries should not have difficulties here also... I think. Actually they should have easier to bring in new technologies to them.. which also actually bring better their speed of developing. But already developed countries must replace a lot of old technology and light bulbs :D ... dump old habits and... Though there are energy crisis also in those developed countries... but it seems they still prefer comfort of run old and tested way..

Yet it seems that china is maybe even worse than USA.. I don't know...

But I know that reduce the carbon dioxide emissions is surely good anyhow.. even if it doesn't help against global warming. Well it must be good since USA don't want do it :P

The treaty would not reduce emissions. It would only hold back the economies of the leading countries and at the same time boost the economies of the developing countries (who are not required to abide by the treaty)giving them an unfair advantage over the world. Only a fool would sign such a fools document.

Russian science (Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia) has shown that global warming happens on Mars at the same rate as the Earth. Global warming is due to solar activity.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.
"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

Abdussamatov believes that the irradiance of the Sun has been dropping since the 1990s, and that it will be reaching it's lowest point sometime around 2040, causing "a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years." Abdussamatov is the head of the space research sector of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and he's made the pages of the Meow before. I've written about Russian scientists predicting the onset of Global Cooling, and Abdussamatov's belief that efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions should be put on hold for the next century or so, because the fluctuations in Earth's temperature are part of natural cycles resulting from variations in the Sun's temperature, and Abdussamatov says the Sun's going to turn down the heat, and won't be making things get this toasty again until some time in the 22nd century. As Ravilious explains in her National Geographic article, he sees the concurrent warming on Mars as support for his theories about warming, and cooling, on Earth.

Last edited by Danyet on Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.

If you want to talk about pollution then that is another story largely unrelated to global warming. Pollution should be stopped.
By the way, the earth was warmer 1,000 years ago than it is today.

If you knew anything about this subject you would know that the biggest single rise in ocean temperature occurred in about 1925 or 1926. That was due to the way that the sea water was tested and the test was carried out.

If you want to find reasons to hate USA then I suggest you find other ones. Like: Why is it that in Hollywood movies about World War II, only the Americans were the heros?

Well I don't believe that reducing those greenhouse things could actually reduce Leading countries economy as well.. It can be opposite.. Actually It's allready working for Leading countries good, these Leading countries gain by selling and developing new ecological stuff to those poor developing countries.. to help them to reduce those gases..

Well actually yes, I know nothing about this subject, not about global warming not about greenhouse gases.. ( wait actually Somewhere I remember I read once something about it.. I have read that actually all living things broduct those gases.. even forrests and etc).. so if I remember that right, then something i still know.. but anyway it's look pooring.. so I don't.

[quote="danyet"]Some of the worlds best weather scientists say that global warming is bunk...[quote]
Your 'most reliable hurricane forecaster' is Mr Nobody for me. He's only an emeritus. Let him go with the wind

well, i think that we should take a look from both sides and analyze some of the points that each one is throwing to the table, i do believe that some of the things we do are not that friendly to the planet where we live, and without any doubts we are not treating it as we should, however we cannot deny that it has been quite profitable to be environmental friendly and therefore its good to have some scientists saying that we should consume those products instead of others, giving this way loads of money to the companies working on that, and the same thing happens about politics, they know that any environmental idea will bring them a lot of votes in the future, so... im not able to have a final thought about this issue since there's to many interests going on

There are so many credible scientists who say that Global warming is bunk that only the foolish can blindly follow one side or another. IT is left for each of us to search out the answers given by those scientists who disagree with the government-funded scientists who say Global Warming is a "fact".

Any scientists who does not say that Global Warming is a fact is quickly shut up by the government-funded scientists. Even after they have proven that their findings are correct.

Have any of you who believe in GW here at EC bothered to investigate? I think not! You just read your newspaper headlines and listen to your local "news" on television. Or perhaps you think that you are real smart and watch The Discovery Channel and think that you will get the truth from them, who only go where the money goes.
Don't be lazy! If you are lazy then keep your opinions to yourself!

A quote from another scientist with a few facts that you won't find in your schools.

10 Feb 07 - "Timothy Ball is no wishy-washy skeptic of global warming. The Canadian climatologist, who has a Ph.D. in climatology from the University of London and taught at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years, says that the widely propagated "fact" that humans are contributing to global warming is the "greatest deception in the history of science."

"Ball has made no friends among global warming alarmists by saying that global warming is caused by the sun, that global warming will be good for us and that the Kyoto Protocol ""is a political solution to a nonexistent problem without scientific justification."

"Q: What is your strongest or best argument that GW is not ""very likely"" to be caused by SUVs and Al Gore’’s private planes?

"A: I guess the best argument is that global warming has occurred, but it began in 1680, if you want to take the latest long-term warming, and the climate changes all the time. It began in 1680, in the middle of what’’s called ""The Little Ice Age"" when there was three feet of ice on the Thames River in London. And the demand for furs of course drove the fur trade. The world has warmed up until recently, and that warming trend doesn’t fit with the CO2 record at all; it fits with the sun-spot data. Of course they are ignoring the sun because they want to focus on CO2.

Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, said, "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism spread by Global Alarmist Nuts have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges." Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said, "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."

There are literally billions of taxpayer dollars being handed out to global warming alarmists, not to mention their dream of controlling our lives. Their agenda is threatened by dissent.

Throughout the Earth's billions of years there have been countless periods of global warming and cooling. In fact, in the year 1,000 A.D., a time when there were no SUVs, the Earth's climate was much warmer than it is now. Most of this century's warming occurred before 1940. For several decades after WWII, when there was massive worldwide industrialization, there was cooling.

Manmade carbon dioxide emissions are roughly 5 percent of the total; the rest are from natural sources such as volcanoes, dying vegetation and animals. Annually, volcanoes alone produce more carbon dioxide than all of mankind's activities. Oceans are responsible for most greenhouse gases.

Contrary to environmentalists' claims, the higher the Earth's temperature, the higher the carbon dioxide levels. In other words, carbon dioxide levels are a product of climate change.

Scientists argue that the greatest influence on the Earth's temperature is our sun's sunspot activity. The bottom line is, the bulk of scientific evidence shows that what we've been told by environmentalists is pure bunk.

to hell this rattling about warming - the penetrating moscow winter in april, low temperatures at nights and in the mornings and warm weather at daytime - all these make me ill for the second time during 3 three weeks

Kyoto is a Fraud
Here’s a great article by Owen McShane
Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

I acknowledge that the city of Kyoto exists. Any claims to the contrary are fraudulent. However, the protocol developed out of the IPCC conference in Kyoto is a fraud, because it is based on fraudulent assumptions, fraudulent models and fraudulent manipulations of data.

This necessarily means that the Kyoto protocol itself is a fraud and that we are the victims of a major scam.

The Fourteen Frauds of the Kyoto Protocol

1. The Consensus Fraud: - It claims that we have certainty when there is none and claims scientific consensus when there is none. Furthermore there is absolutely no consensus on the economic inputs to the models.

2. The Averaging Fraud: - It translates global averages into local events.

3. The "Warming is Bad for Us" Fraud: - The benign period of the middle ages was warmer than today and civilizations flourished.

4. The "Climate Change is Unnatural" Fraud: - the Kyoto protocol assumes that climate change is unnatural, is caused by human action and hence will response to human intervention, and used the Hockey Stick to support this argument. In reality climate change is normal and natural, and the Hockey Stick is a fraud.

5. The Economic Inputs Fraud: - The IPCC models are driven by economic inputs as well as climate change theory. The economic inputs are so wildly improbable, and theoretically unsound, as to be fraudulent.

6. The Intergenerational Equity Fraud: - Future generations will be wealthy beyond our dreams and will be able to adapt to climate change; poor people today should not suffer today to improve the lot of the wealthy populations of tomorrow.

7. The Population Fraud: - The population implosion is well underway and will achieve Kyoto type reductions in emissions at no direct cost.

8. The Energy Fraud: - The IPCC models assume fossil fuel use rates which deny historical records and reject all known trends. Carbon dioxide emissions are falling - not rising, as the IPCC fraudulently claims.

9. The End of Technology Fraud: - Technological changes and impacts, now under way, will allow us to live wherever we choose and with greatly reduced environmental impacts, and greatly reduce our use of fossil fuels.

10. The Gross Emissions Fraud: - The Kyoto protocol focuses on gross emissions rather than net emissions. This makes the US look like "the great polluter" rather than a net carbon sink - which it probably is.

11. The Roots not Shoots Fraud: - The Kyoto protocol focuses on carbon credits in the trees rather than the carbon absorbed into soil organisms.

12. The Great Flatulence Fraud: - Our New Zealand farmers are the most efficient ruminant farmers and should be telling others how to match our own performance rather than being cast as the villains of the methane world.

13. The Inter- Generational Equity Fraud: - There are no grounds for requiring people today to suffer on behalf of future wealthier generations. Wealth facilitates adaptation and humans are uniquely adaptable.

14. The Hockey Stick Fraud: - Finally, the IPCC's "Hockey Stick" is based on fraudulent manipulation of the data. The graph attached as Appendix I below shows that the medieval benign period and the mini-ice-age and the subsequent warming all actually happened. The "Hockey Stick" is the greatest fraud of all.

See the entire article:http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0312/S00036.htm

I was wrong - it's getting warmer I guess
several days ago 8km from Moscow town I witnessed a hawk-moth, that has never been seen before here,
it inhabits just the warmest places of Eurasia, like Italy, the North of Africa and so on, while migrating it may be seen in the Caucasus, but near Moscow... I'm expecting the hippos to be walking on the streets here freely very soon

Haven't you figured out that Al Gore is looney by now? Lenny girl? Hmmm....hmmmmm? The guy has gone bozo! And of course his retardo movieo only tells one side a half truths. I say girly.....I say....at least read what the other scientists think and if the real scientists who actually study this particular science disagree, who is Al Gore? .............A politician.

Hi There! I am an Al Gore Doll. Would you like to see and hear me talk like a robot? My head is glued on stiff and doesn't move but my arms and legs are moveable! You can dress me up and put a beard on me and even put me in your pocket and take me to parties or place me on your desk at school.

LennyeTran, if you are asking me, I may say no - I haven't... I just say what I have seen this summer and what I haven't seen for 9 previous years. what made those creatures move so far to the North? :?

Well, after reading all your replies, I must say that I agree in part with Danyet. He´s right when he said that CO2 emissions produced by natural sources are bigger than the ones produced by humans sources. I know that because I took a subject about this at the university and, as many of you guys, I was shocked when my teacher showed me all the scientific evidence which demostrate that.... But that doesn´t mean that we don´t need to do something to reduce mankind´s emissions.

The good thing about the media coverage about this is that nowadays we've been getting more and more conscience on how we should coexist with the environment, I mean, we are realizing that we can´t treat it in the way we´ve been doing it so far...

I guess the planet will be cooling down soon. According to the report the Sun has been warming up and the power is still "flying" to the Earth, but the Sun is not that hot as it used to be previously, so sooner or later we (not we but the successors maybe) will be living in the Ice Age... of course I don't have my exact point of view - I'm not an expert - I just follow the professors' idea :D

I'm afraid poor insects I was talking about have passed away... the last time I saw them, they were motionless or very slow the night temperatures fell to +1 degree Celsius... they shouldn't have come...

danyet wrote:Haven't you figured out that Al Gore is looney by now? Lenny girl? Hmmm....hmmmmm? The guy has gone bozo! And of course his retardo movieo only tells one side a half truths. I say girly.....I say....at least read what the other scientists think and if the real scientists who actually study this particular science disagree, who is Al Gore? .............A politician.

Exaggerating? Yes! But a liar? Heck, no! You're a Republican, so I ain't gonna argue with you about who's better at this lying game. To me, Republicans are bunch of hypocrites, narrow-minded, limited, conservative, and wacky people. You're it!

danyet wrote:Hi There! I am an Al Gore Doll. Would you like to see and hear me talk like a robot? My head is glued on stiff and doesn't move but my arms and legs are moveable! You can dress me up and put a beard on me and even put me in your pocket and take me to parties or place me on your desk at school.

"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." -- Al Gore

The movie features some majestic glaciers that existed in the 19th Century that have all but disappeared today -- but it doesn't bother to mention any of the glaciers growing in Norway, New Zealand and even the United States. The U.S. Forest Service reports that the Hubbard Glacier in Alaska's Tongass National Forest is advancing so rapidly, it threatens to close off a major fjord.

He shows shocking time-lapse photos of ice disappearing from Mt. Kilimanjaro. The ice there has been melting for over a hundred years.

Climate always changes. "An Inconvenient Truth" implies that all serious scientists agree that it is a crisis, and that the United States must immediately reduce carbon dioxide emissions as dictated by the Kyoto treaty the Bush administration so arrogantly refuses to sign -- the same treaty the Clinton-Gore administration didn't even submit to the Senate.

But even advocates of Kyoto admit that if all nations signed the agreement and obeyed it, it would affect global temperatures by less than a tenth of a degree!

Found one. First link IS invalid. Rush Limbaugh? Who are you kidding, babe? He's a Republican. And this is what I've found. Tell me if it's wrong, too.

"On the October 23, 2006 edition of Limbaugh's radio show, Limbaugh imitated on the "DittoCam" (the webcam for website subscribers to see Rush on the air) the physical symptoms of actor Michael J. Fox, who has Parkinson's disease and has appeared in political campaign ads for candidates who support a form of embryonic stem cell research he believes may help cure Parkinson's,[16][17] showing to the viewers what he saw on the commercial he saw, and stated that "He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act.... This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."[18] He speculated this because of an earlier speech Fox made to Congress where he was supposedly off of his medication to show to the Congress the effects of the disease." (copied)

He's going against someone who is supportive of stem cell research and you expect me to believe this guy? You don't know me at all!

Second link, are you kidding me with this?!?!?!?! It was written on "October 4, 2000 5:00 PM by NRO Staff." It was written before the election, wasn't it? And I don't have time to check those facts yet to debate with you. The bottom line is, you know well how imbecilic writers know their ways to twist the truth.

"Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change.

I don't think one have to panic because of Global Warming. The Planet goes through phases of cooling and warming, now it is the phase of warming. (there has been phase of cooling from 1940 to 1970) In general, it's natural and the human contributions to it is minimal, however, I do think that developing countries should decrease carbon dioxide (CO2) emission.